Slashdot Mirror
Spaceplane Concept Receives Euro Funding
draevil writes "BBC News reports that the novel "Skylon" spaceplane design of British firm Reaction Engines has received funding to proceed with its proof-of-concept design for an air-breathing rocket engine.
If successful, the Sabre rocket engine will be able to take the Skylon with 12 tonnes of cargo from a runway, to orbit and then back to that runway without the need for disposable components or a piggy-back ride on a larger aircraft.
Should the design prove viable, it could see first use within ten years."
...to save a few hundred kilos of oxidiser. On the ground they won't be moving fast enough to scoop oxygen out of the air. In less than a minute they will be too high and fast to use anything from the atmosphere. Once effectively out of the atmosphere most of the work remains to be done so that will have to use stored oxygen.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
I think the only ones who do this stuff successfully are the Americans.
An Australian team has flown a scramjet.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Space Craft Blog feeds
The Sabre isn't taking anything into orbit, then, is it...
FTFA..."As the air density falls with altitude the engine eventually switches to a pure rocket propelling Skylon to orbital velocity..."
We have a space plane [wikipedia.org].
No, we have a "Space Shuttle" that is launched vertically from a standard-type large rocket launch facility with a monstrously-huge and expensive to build and operate hybrid solid and liquid rocket launch vehicle.
A hybrid spaceplane using both air-breathing and pure rocket propulsion able to take off and land on a runway like an airplane with no Shuttle-type booster rocket system required is a whole other animal.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
I think your definition of 'Rocket' is too restrictive. There is such a thing as an Air Augmented Rocket, which has all the characteristices of a rocket except it also uses air as additional propellant mass (not as a fuel) This is not the same as a RamJet. Also, from my understanding a Rocket is a type of Jet - an engine which relies up the dischage of a fluid jet for propulsion.
Why not take a look at: http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/sabre.html which may answer some of these questions? I went to a talk by John Scott-Scott of Reaction Engines a few years back and was very impressed by his description of the engineering work for the Sabre engine. The Reaction Engines guys are practical engineers with a wealth of experience, far from the "bumbling Brits" some other comments suggest.
I don't know how old you are, but I'm guessing you weren't born yet in the early 80s, when the shuttle first started flying. Trust me, a modern iPhone would out perform a 4 x 6 x 2ft mainframe from that time. I'm sure that the first shuttle had less computing power than the computer that I'm using right now. And GPS hadn't even started to be implemented yet. Yet our ICBMs could hit targets within a couple hundred yards on the other side of the world.
Here here. They don't even blink an eye about handing the bankers billions of dollars. But they can't agree on any spending that would actually benifit our country. OK, its arguable as to whether space exploration is prudent right now. But the Republicans in congress are saying that expanding and repairing our worn out infrastructure is a total waste of money. No, they insist that if we just hand it out to the people who still have money, then magically, it will somehow help those of us who don't. What they are actually doing is called looting. They realize that they have driven us to the verge of collapse, and now they are just trying to horde as much as they can so they can come through the depression ahead of everyone else. They're getting kind of desperate right now because they are realizing that their $5 billion will only be worth $500 million in a few years.
The assertion that Europe has the welfare state only because America is covering their defense..
I never stated that it was the only reason, but it does contribute hugely along with confiscatory levels of taxes and other forms of wealth transference from the people to the government.
Finland, for example, has never elected to join in a defense pact with the US. Nonetheless, it has built on its own one of the strongest armies in Europe (defense analysts suggest it could hold off another offense by the Russian army) and a fine welfare state matching in most respects its Nordic neighbors.
Finland bloodied Soviet Russia's nose in failed invasion attempts previously in 1939 and 1941, and enjoys a natural geographic/terrain advantage over an invasion from the direction of Russia. These previous failed invasions by Russia were extremely costly in every way to Finland and have caused Finland to develop a strong cadre-type military with mandatory full-concription and an extremely-strong sense of independence.
The Fins can fight, and will do so under extreme conditions against massive forces that far outnumber and outgun them, and win! I greatly admire the Finnish people. They are a hardy and pragmatic sort that while having suffered great hardships and losses as a nation, plus living where climate conditions can be harsh & unforgiving, are nonetheless open, generous, and friendly. They're also great people to have at your back as allies if trouble starts.
Finland prides itself on its' citizens' ability and readiness if threatened. Finland being so small in population and area relatively speaking, coupled with full-conscription allows it to use military spending very efficiently compared to other countries. This allows them to have the necessary wealth to spare on social programs that is out of proportion with other countries' size & wealth.
Cheers!
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
You're wrong about the engines, the engines are actively cooled at the inlet- they see ground level conditions throughout the flight.
You're also wrong about nitrogen, nitrogen is perfectly good reaction mass up to about Mach 5. Beyond that it tends to come apart. Guess what speed Skylon calls it quits and turns on the rockets?
The other point you're missing is that at low speeds rockets are horribly inefficient; the exhaust velocity is much too high. By using the nitrogen as reaction mass; powered by the hydrogen fuel reacting with atmospheric oxygen Skylon can reduce the exhaust velocity and get massively better efficiency. That means it needs a lot less propellant, and then when it does turn on the rockets, it has performance in hand. The design has twice the payload fraction of a rocket design because of that.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"